Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Race Discrimination and Mortgage Fraud
The crisis in the subprime mortgage markets has brought to light many allegations of predatory practices by mortgage lenders and other participants in the housing industry. In Barkley v. Olympia Mortgage Co., NYLJ 8/28/07, p. 31, col. 3, Judge Raymond Dearie of the Eastern District approved a strategy that might permit some victims of the alleged fraud to obtain a federal forum, with the possibility of treble damages and attorneys fees: allege (and prove) that the predatory practices constituted a form of racial discrimination.
The Allegations
Plaintiffs in the Barkley case are all African-Americans who contacted United Homes about purchasing a first home. They allege that United Homes purchased defective homes at foreclosure sales, performed cosmetic repairs, and then resold the homes at highly inflated prices. The complaint alleges that United Homes worked with appraisers, who appraised the home at inflated prices, enabling lenders to obtain FHA insurance for loans that exceeded the value of the homes, and therefore to collect at inflated prices when borrowers defaulted. The complaint also alleges that United Homes offered the assistance of lawyers and lenders to speed through the purchase and mortgage process, giving the plaintiff-purchasers little opportunity to obtain independent advice. Perhaps concerned that they might be faced with a caveat emptor response to state law fraud claims, plaintiffs alleged that the various defendants ' United Homes, together with lenders, appraisers, and lawyers ' had targeted minorities as victims of the scam, and, in the process, had violated both federal civil rights statutes and the federal Fair Housing Act.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.